DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Jose M. v. Eleanor J., 316 P.3d 602.

34 citing documents.

  • In Re Term of Parental Rights as to M.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • In Re Term of Parental Rights as to M.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Gloria M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Distinguished Gloria M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Although Mother argues that Father interfered with her ability to see the children, and Jose M. v. Eleanor J., S.M., both cases are distinguishable.
  • Alma S. v. Dep't of Child Safety 418 P.3d 925 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Shontal K. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Shontal K. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    ¶ 16 (2016) ( ¶ 21 (App. 2014).
  • Alma S. v. Dep't of Child Safety 418 P.3d 925 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    enile Action No. JS-500274 , , 7-8, , 736-37 (1990) (holding that the fact a child has been abandoned and would be adoptable by the mother's hypothetical future husband and that the mother could nominate her parents as potential guardians if something should happen to her was not enough to show that severance was in the child's best interests); cf. Jose M. v. Eleanor J. , , 17-18, ¶¶ 19, 23, , 606-607 (App. 2014) (vacating a severance for failure to prove abandonment but explaining that the chil
  • Michael M. v. Katie A., E.O. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Michael M. v. Katie A., E.O. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    ¶16 P.3d 1115 (App. 2013) P.3d 602 (App. 2014) in support of his assertion that Mother prevented him from having contact with E.O.
  • Jena H. v. Todd H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Jena H. v. Todd H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    Mother also alleges Father interfered with her ability to develop a normal parental relationship with the Children by terminating her contact with them in March 2015
  • E.O. v. Michael M., Katie A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • E.O. v. Michael M., Katie A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    P.3d 602 (App. 2014) and again found severance was not in E.O.’s best interests.
  • Brooke M. v. Timothy S., W.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Brooke M. v. Timothy S., W.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    But, ¶ 21 (App. 2014), the court concluded Mother had not proven severance was in Child’s best interests and therefore denied Mother’s petition.
  • Jeremy v. v. Judith H., K.V. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Jeremy v. v. Judith H., K.V. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶7 On review, this Court, ¶ 21 (App. 2014), determined Mother failed to prove severance was in Child’s best interests and issued a memorandum decision vacating the juvenile court’s severance order.
  • Demetrius L. v. Joshlynn F./d.L. 365 P.3d 353 Ariz. 2016
  • Demetrius L. v. Joshlynn F./d.L. 365 P.3d 353 Ariz. 2016
    P.3d 602 (App. 2014), the court concluded that Stepfather’s plan to adopt D.L.
  • Demetrius L. v. Hoshlynn F., D.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Demetrius L. v. Hoshlynn F., D.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    In light of this court’s we conclude this record does not establish by a preponderance of evidence that terminating Father’s parental rights is in Child’s best interests.
  • Cherlle S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Cherlle S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    -18, ¶ 23, -07 (App. 2014).
  • Andrew R. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Andrew R. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    “Termination of the parent-child relationship is in the child’s best interests if the child would be harmed if the relationship continued or would benefit from the termination.” ¶ 21
  • Joseph F. v. Dcs, J.P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Joseph F. v. Dcs, J.P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Chaine M. v. Pamela R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Chaine M. v. Pamela R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    5 CHAINE M. v. PAMELA R., et al. Decision of the Court ¶15 Mother asserts that the juvenile court’s P.3d 602 (App. 2014).
  • Barbara K. v. Ades Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Barbara K. v. Ades Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    “Termination of the parent- child relationship is in the child’s best interests if the child would be harmed if the relationship continued or would benefit from the termination.” ¶ 21
  • William W. v. Brooke S., P.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • William W. v. Brooke S., P.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Although this court recently issued a decision explaining that adoptability alone is insufficient to make a best interests determination for a child already in a stable and permanent environment, see Jose M. v. Eleanor J., __ Ariz. ___, ___ ¶ 23, -07 (App. 2014), the use of P.W.